People v. Bonilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bonilla

179 A.D.2d 488, 579 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 321

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 16, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 179 A.D.2d 488 (People v. Bonilla) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bonilla, 179 A.D.2d 488, 579 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Evidence at trial was that a police officer, stationed at a rooftop observation post with binoculars, observed defendant on the street below make five separate sales of heroin to five different apprehended purchasers within a period of approximately two hours.

Defendant’s claim on appeal that the trial court’s marshaling of the evidence was unbalanced and favorable to the People is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law [489]*489by appropriate and timely objection (CPL 470.05). Were we to reach this issue we would affirm in that the trial court’s jury charge accurately conveyed the applicable factual and legal issues, and its marshaling of the evidence fulfilled the obligation to explain application of the law (CPL 300.10 [2]) without any resulting prejudice to defendant (see, People v Culhane, 45 NY2d 757, cert denied 439 US 1047). Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Evidence at trial was that a police officer, stationed at a rooftop observation post with binoculars, observed defendant on the street below make five separate sales of heroin to five different apprehended purchasers within a period of approximately two hours.

Defendant’s claim on appeal that the trial court’s marshaling of the evidence was unbalanced and favorable to the People is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law [489]*489by appropriate and timely objection (CPL 470.05). Were we to reach this issue we would affirm in that the trial court’s jury charge accurately conveyed the applicable factual and legal issues, and its marshaling of the evidence fulfilled the obligation to explain application of the law (CPL 300.10 [2]) without any resulting prejudice to defendant (see, People v Culhane, 45 NY2d 757, cert denied 439 US 1047). Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 488, 579 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bonilla-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack